I was watching one of those true-crime shows, it went on and on about luminall being used to find blood stains, DNA and fiber evidese, neato stuff.
Does it really work?
After all the bad guys are more sophisticated now, they also take advantage of modern inventions (phones, cars and so on). Has all this scientific stuff made it more likely that a murderer is caught now than 100 years ago?
Bad guys are not that sophisticated. 99% of crimes are committed by really stupid people.
Add that to the fact that everything that you do to try to cover evidence leaves more evidence…
If I’m remembering right, luminol works better the older the blood it’s used on is. Pretty nifty stuff, that.
I beleive when there are no witnesses or any other evidence you can easily find these new fangeled techniques are very helpful. Sure, 100 years ago (and even now in less develloped areas) you could break into a house and slaughter five people with an axe, leaving your blood, hair, and bits of your clothes, footprints, fingerprints, etc… all over the place and be pretty assured that no one could look at what you left behind and link it to you -
But none of that would help if someone saw you go into the house with that axe, knew you had a grudge against those people, your friend ratted on you to get the reward, or you couldn’t give an alibi when the sheriff came knocking on your door. That old fashion footwork by the authorities and others telling on you always did and continues to have it’s purpose.
Also don’t forget that the new technology helps prove some suspects innocent as well. Way back the courts didn’t have to have as mcuh of an airtight case against you for you to be “guilty” - if everyone thought it was you, they’d just get a bunch of torches and hang you where ever they caught you, particularly if you had a bad name or were a minority… not an everyday occurance, but it happened.
You would think someone out there would have some sort of study on this.
It is not really my field, for some reason I find it interesting however.
I don’t have much to say about the OP, but…
[hijack]Paul, that first line should be “All that is gold does not glitter.”[/hijack]
Strangely enough, the best way to commit a crime (if you want to get away, which presumably you do) is not to use any newfangled technology. Just make sure you have a good reason to be out, and hit someone random. Serial Killers do it all the time; that is why they are so hard to catch.
Yes, it is easy to kill someone assuming you have no reason to do it.
Still, my question remains, I suspect technology simply make us more certain when we solve the easy cases.
I note my old home state of Maryland got a grant to do ballisitcs tests on all weapons they come across in crime investigations and to set up a central registry of the fingerprints of bullets found at crime scenes.
Waddya mean, we weren’t already doing that?